Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Road


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Clyde Road

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Non notable road which happens to have a couple of buildings on it - like most would. Being the location of national headquarters is not notable. The organisation is, the road isn't. Headquarters could move to Bmzef Road tomorrow. Would that make this street notable. No. Balloholic (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - is this up to WP:50k? No. Grutness...wha?  22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of Ireland. Anyone searching for this road need only know of its one shining light of notability. --Balloholic (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The streets on which  major diplomatic missions & headquarters are located in a national capital are notable. it was boldly redirected by then nominator while the afd was in progress, an action which is discouraged, so I reverted it per WP:BRD. I note the policy that Guntness cites was written by himself and is on his own user space.DGG (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy is used by many across many articles and this has been stated before. Grutness is a good commonsense editor and don't you forget it. --Balloholic (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This a major road in an upmarket area of a capital city. It is the location of numerous institutions, dignitaries and major buildings.  Insofar as the WP:50k idea means anything, this road certainly qualifies by virtue of its ranking within the community.  There are thousands of sources which mention this road for this reason - too numerous to trawl through in detail right now.  The article should obviously not be deleted since, if nothing else, it is clearly a useful search term.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't make me choke. This is clear favouritism on the part of some American who can't bear to lose the location of one of their embassies. We can't have every street in the world with an embassy on it! That would be about 500 per country times 200 and be like 50,000 little nooks and crannies all in existence, most just with a line saying they have an embassy and no potential for improvement. This isn't local geography class! --Balloholic (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor who created this article appears to be Irish, not American. And you did not notify him of this nomination - tsk. And why replace the article with this AFD discussion which is already longer and has less potential for improvement.  You realise that none of this, not even the article, is actually deleted and so you are causing the number of nooks and crannies to grow, not shrink? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is bad form and very objectionable. The public nooks and crannies are being reduced but behind the scenes they will always grow due to the folly of editors such as yourself who beat down commonsense with a stick and thrash it raw. There was no way it would have been speedily deleted and anyway I decided to be kind and allow everyone the chance to wave goodbye before it disappears forever from public view. I think you know that I handled it correctly - and I was referring to those who want it kept, not the creator (who being Irish is therefore local) who I decided was best should remain innocent from this murderous and shameful debacle I think you'll agree. --Balloholic (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is public too and it is a curious paradox that we should add to the public nooks and crannies here over a desire to obstruct access to a piece of more useful information. And, FWIW, I am not American either. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think all Americans, Englishmen(and women) and Dubliners should out themselves as such and remove themselves immediately from the conversation. These will not be able to maintain a neutral stance. 31 counties should be able to decide between them the solution to this horrendous problem. I am in no way connected to any of the above ethnic majorities. --Balloholic (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DGG and the Colonel Warden, a major street in a capital city that has numerous important buildings. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Negative Reply - How is this a major street. The buildings may be important, they have their own articles, but that is hardly a reason to have an article on a minor street. If that were the case then there would be an article on every street in Dublin. --Balloholic (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So the buildings are important but the street isn't? That makes about as much sense as saying a city is important but the country it's in isn't. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - That is quite a stupid comparisson to make. Are you serious. So should we create an article on every street, avenue, road, whatever, in every town in every country because they have a few "notable" buildings. That would be nice. Joe's Road in the tiny village of (insert any village in the world) has a church located on it. Oh, that's notable because it has a building on it. We'll keep it there so. --Balloholic (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.